Archives: Projects

(This was originally published on Optimal Partners’ blog.)

Choosing the right vendor in Higher Ed IT is essential to providing students, faculty, and staff with the technology and services they need. Selecting the wrong vendor could be disastrous for the longevity of your project, potentially putting you massively over budget and past your expected deadlines. Ensuring that the product you’re looking into fits within your budget and meets the needs of your project is a good start, but there are a few less obvious and often overlooked items to consider when choosing a vendor. Keep these following items in mind during your next project to avoid any unnecessary hang-ups and complications.

Are They Engaged in Higher Ed?

Higher Ed is unlike any other industry, and as such, your project will benefit greatly from finding a vendor that is engaged in the Higher Ed community. It’s not enough to have worked with other colleges and universities in the past; they should play an active role in the community, working as a partner to Higher Ed institutions, rather than just a vendor. Whether they’re sponsoring events or working with students to promote education, finding a vendor that’s engaged in the Higher Ed community is a great start to building a strong partnership.

What is their Culture?

Part of what makes Higher Ed so unique is its culture of collaboration. That culture can be further defined by the specific environment at your institution. It can be easy to overlook the culture of a prospective vendor when investigating the details of their product. If a vendor’s internal culture doesn’t match (or, worse, clashes with) your institution’s culture, that not only doesn’t bode well for your partnership with them but could also complicate the initial phases of your project as you both adjust. If you work with a company that has a culture and mission that matches your institution’s, you will at least know that you’re both working towards the same goal.

Are They Selling a Product or Finding a Solution?

A truly valuable Higher Ed vendor will be willing to find a solution to your problem even if that means recommending a competitor that better suits your needs.

When it comes to many vendors in Higher Ed, they’re ultimately looking to sell your institution a product and maintain a business relationship to ensure future sales. While this is the goal of any business (and not specific to Higher Ed vendors), a truly valuable Higher Ed vendor will be willing to find a solution to your problem even if that means recommending a competitor that better suits your needs. Transparency and cooperation are key to building a strong vendor partnership, and knowing that they have your institution’s needs in mind rather than just their bottom line will help strengthen that relationship and make any future collaborations go much more smoothly.

Are They Honest?

Although it may sound obvious, finding a vendor that is willing to be completely honest with their clients is essential to building a successful partnership. A truly honest vendor will be willing to admit that they don’t have all the answers. If a situation arises when they don’t have a specific solution to your problem, will they be willing to admit it? This extends to how they present their product as well. A vendor that exaggerates the features and functionality of their product may not be completely honest about other aspects of your partnership. Sometimes a vendor that understates their product can be better for the long-term success of your project.

Do They Listen?

There’s a popular saying that goes, “Are you listening or just waiting for your turn to speak?” This is especially important to look for when dealing with prospective vendors. Your project will benefit greatly from a vendor who is truly engaged in what you are saying, rather than waiting for their chance to talk about their product. Finding a partner that is actively engaged in listening to your problems and finding solutions to them is paramount for the success of your project and ongoing partnership.

Are They Flexible?

Higher Ed institutions can differ drastically from one another in size, culture, and technological complexity, making finding a vendor that fits perfectly with your project very difficult. Instead, look for a vendor that has the resources to customize their services to match your institution’s needs specifically. Not only will this help you reach your goal quicker and more efficiently, but it shows that the vendor is willing to collaborate and provide the support you need.

Once you have honed in on a selection of vendors that meet your functional and budget requirements, take the time to consider these few items to ensure a successful ongoing partnership.

While the future of Higher Ed technology is up for discussion, one thing is for certain: change is inevitable. Just as new technologies change the way we communicate, do business, and entertain ourselves, so too will it change how professors teach and how students learn, albeit likely at a slightly slower pace. We recently sat down with Dr. Peyton Helm, interim Chancellor at the University of Massachusetts: Dartmouth, to discuss how he believes advancements in technology will affect Higher Education in the future.

Transitional Technology

Whether it is necessarily true or not, Higher Ed has a reputation for being slow to adapt to emerging technology. Luckily, it only takes a few early adopters for the rest of the Higher Ed community to take notice. Dr. Helm proposed that while some universities may have the resources to devote to experimenting with new technology, the safest strategy is for institutions to stay just behind the bleeding edge. The key is to “realize that almost all technology is transitional technology” as you evaluate whether it’s right for your institution, Dr. Helm explained.

Although many innovations in Higher Ed have been called disruptive, not all have had the impact that their loudest proponents were hoping for. “The flipped classroom, online learning, and MOOCs are really powerful innovations in how we teach, but I think they’re very transitional,” Helm said. “I think we’ll find that 5 years from now, 10 years from now, MOOCs will seem quaint.” This sentiment seems to be shared by much of the Higher Ed community, as MOOCs and other “disruptive” forms of e-learning have eventually found their place within the mold of Higher Education rather than flipping the field on its head.

Pedagogical Advancements

As a former professor, Dr. Helm was very interested in how technology will affect pedagogical strategies. “If you think about education through ancient times, through the middle ages, into the enlightenment, into the 20th century, into the early 21st century, it hasn’t changed that much; you show up at a particular place, you sit down, and you listen,” Dr. Helm said. Despite this, recent advances in technology have helped researchers study how students learn in order to adjust pedagogical strategies to match. “What we’ve learned about how people learn is that there’s a process and there’s a cycle and there are ways that you can gain that cycle to make learning more efficient,” Dr. Helm explained. “Technology has advanced a long way from the highlighter pen, but the ways in which we use it, especially when informed by metacognition, can make teaching much more effective, not to mention pleasant.”

The real key to impactful learning, Dr. Helm said, is to provide students learning opportunities that require their input and interaction. As an example,  he mentioned an activity he offered to his students in a course on ancient history. “I just happened to have a complete set of hoplite armor; shield, spear, armor helmet, greaves, sword. Everything. Don’t ask me how I happened to have it, but I did. For students who chose this activity, it was about ‘what was it like to be a greek warrior?’” Although his approach was relatively low-tech, Dr. Helm acknowledged that similarly impactful learning environments could be created with the use of emerging technologies such as virtual and augmented reality. “We can use high tech and low tech to make much better pedagogy high impact. High impact is the goal.”

A Look Into The Future

I think there’s going to be increased efficiency, seamlessness, that is going to make the administrative interface for students much less of a hassle.

While many emerging technologies in Higher Ed may seem fairly tame compared to what is happening in the fields of aerospace engineering or robotics, Dr. Helm suggested that this may not be the case for very long. “I think there’s going to be increased efficiency, seamlessness, that is going to make the administrative interface for students much less of a hassle 10 or 20 years from now than it is today. The concept of a one-stop shop has never been completely effectively realized, but I think that it can be in the future with a chip on a card or maybe embedded in your skin.”

Artificial intelligence is another hot topic for discussion in relation to its potential uses in Higher Ed. Last year, our CEO, Nuno Couto, mentioned that advances in A.I. may lead to artificial professors in the classroom that are capable of teaching. Dr. Helm seemed to agree. “I was in a meeting with one of my staff the other day, so I just put my phone down on the table and I asked her a question. Before she could answer, Siri popped up with an answer because the phone was sitting there and, for some reason, Siri thought she was invited into the conversation.” The mainstream success of A.I. in smartphones and home assistant devices shows just how impactful A.I. technology could be when adapted to Higher Ed’s needs.

What Needs to Change

While emerging technologies are often the primary focus of discussion, there are a lot of traditional technologies in Higher Ed that are in need of updating. When asked what might fade away or be replaced with something more effective in the near future, Dr. Helm said that email would be the first to go. “Email came along when I was probably in my late 30’s and I thought ‘wow this is cool, this is efficient,’ and just like anything else we overuse it and abuse it and turn it into a curse.” Instead, Helm predicted that social media and blogs are going to continue to grow and evolve as a way for students, faculty, and university staff to communicate. “Anything that involves groups working together online is going to evolve and is going to be a big part of the future.”

Dr. Helm also expressed that, while cybersecurity is becoming increasingly important, a new approach will need to be found to get Higher Ed institutions significantly ahead of the cyber threats set against them. “The number of cyberattacks is just stunning,” he said. “We need to come up with some sort of silver bullet that’s going to protect data. I don’t know what that would look like. I can tell you what it’s not going to be; it’s not going to be having to remember six dozen passwords and it’s not going to be two-factor verification because it’s just too frustrating.”

Communicating with Faculty

With a slew of new technologies being introduced into Higher Ed comes the need for IT departments to properly convey their benefits to users and train them effectively. When asked if he had any advice for Higher Ed tech professionals to make systems implementations go more smoothly, Dr. Helm suggested that they focus on the “basic concepts of customer service” and that they “learn who their customers are.”

Attempt to communicate the value of your project to them from their perspective

While training users is a daunting process, there is one key point to remember according to Dr. Helm. “The one thing that faculty fear more than anything is looking stupid.” He explained that you “never ever want to put them in a situation where they think you’re making them look stupid” because they won’t be willing to work with you. Instead, attempt to communicate the value of your project to them from their perspective; show them how they will benefit directly from using the new technology and empower them during the learning process. “It’s not about proving to the end users how smart you are and how dumb they are about the technology,” Dr. Helm said. “You need to somehow set up ways of appealing to what motivates them. What motivates them is often that they want to be effective scholars, not technological early adopters, and they certainly don’t want to look stupid. So, those are the levers that you want to use.”

Predicting the Future

While no one can know for sure how technology will affect Higher Ed in the future, there’s enough evidence out there to make educated predictions. The key is to remember that while not every emerging technology is going to be disruptive to Higher Ed, it may end up being a transition to something that is. “Anything we do is always on the road to the next thing,” Dr. Helm said, “and we can never be completely confident of what that next thing is.”

We would like to thank Dr. Helm for taking the time to speak with us. If you’d like to learn more about Dr. Helm, you can follow him on Twitter @ichancellorhelm.

(This was originally published on Optimal Partners’ blog.)

Sometimes cybersecurity in a Higher Ed environment can feel like fighting off many fires with only one bucket of water. Thankfully, Higher Ed’s unique culture allows IT professionals several opportunities to be able to reach out to their peers and share expertise. One such opportunity for those living in or near Boston is through the Higher Ed IT Professionals Meetup.

Last month, the Meetup met for the second time at the Showa Boston Institute for Language and Culture to discuss all things cybersecurity in Higher Ed. We were joined by three cybersecurity experts, David Marion from Bridgewater State, George Moore, formerly of Salem State, and David Escalante from Boston College. Each panelist shared their unique perspectives and answered questions during the discussion. Marla Botelho, technology consultant and former CIO at Regis College, did a wonderful job of emceeing the event and keeping the conversation as informative as possible.

Our primary goal for this Meetup, besides providing Higher Ed technology professionals a space to network and socialize, was to discuss how universities of various sizes could staff off cyber threats while their IT resources are constrained. The conversation progressed from how university IT professionals could determine priorities against cyber threats to how to gain institutional support for cybersecurity initiatives. Finally, attendees shared their thoughts on the current and future trends that affect how colleges and universities approach securing their networks and devices against cyber threats, such as the Internet of Things.

The panel also made it a point to talk about useful cybersecurity resources that could be obtained either for free or at very little cost. However, David Escalante warned that while “free” may sound good at first, everything comes at a cost. We plan on continuing the discussion on our Meetup page and encourage members to leave additional resources there for everyone to access.

All things considered, the event was a resounding success! We would like to thank Showa Boston for hosting us and providing food and refreshments, everyone who volunteered their time to organize the event, as well as the panelists and attendees who helped make it so engaging. Join the Higher Ed IT Professionals Meetup to be part of the discussion and be notified when we are having our next event!

(This was originally published on Optimal Partners’ blog.)

Cybersecurity is one of the most pressing issues facing Higher Ed institutions currently. Unfortunately, third-party penetration testing and vulnerability assessments can be incredibly expensive, especially for large universities. It may sound too-good-to-be-true, but there is a suite of cybersecurity programs offered for free to help private companies and Higher Ed institutions mitigate the risks of cyber threats.

National Cybersecurity Assessments and Technical Services

The Department of Homeland Security provides a series of cybersecurity programs through their National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC). As part of the NCCIC, the National Cybersecurity Assessments and Technical Services (NCATS) team aims to help prevent cybersecurity breaches and provide assistance if an incident does occur. Their mission “is to measurably decrease the risks present in our Nation’s cybersecurity infrastructure,” and according to their annual report, they’re doing a great job of fulfilling that promise. In the fiscal year 2017, NCATS helped mitigate 300,000 vulnerabilities while conducting cyber hygiene scans for more than 600 government and private sector stakeholders.

Earlier this year, we had the opportunity to speak with a few members of the NCATS team to discuss their programs, the application process, and some of the concerns that we and others had about their offerings. What follows is the summation of that interview, an interview with one of their clients, and additional research into the programs they offer.

NCATS Programs

NCATS primarily offers two programs, the Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (RVA) and the Cyber Hygiene (CH) program. The former, and more robust of the two, involves a team of NCATS engineers performing a series of tests on your university’s network and providing an in-depth analysis of the overall strength of your cybersecurity. The latter is an ongoing non-credentialed scan of your IP perimeter. According to Sean McAfee, a member of NCCIC, “what you see is what you get” when it comes to their services. He expressed that “it’s the same level of expertise from our side. It’s the same scans and tests, regardless of whether it’s the private sector or a university.”

Risk & Vulnerability Assessment

As the more resource intensive option, the Risk and Vulnerability Assessment requires more preparation and planning from both parties, but it may also yield more impactful results. An average RVA engagement takes approximately two weeks. Once initiated, the NCATS team will assign four to five engineers to your institution who will begin their assessment off-site. Once that phase of the assessment is completed, NCATS may require a conference room or office at your institution to complete the second portion of onsite testing.

NCATS’ RVA toolkit includes vulnerability scanning, both internal and external, and social engineering, an exercise to assess how vulnerable your users are to phishing attacks. “We can test what happens if an end user clicks and downloads a malicious file,” McAfee said. During 2015, the RVA’s phishing emails resulted in an average click rate of 25%. Due to more awareness and training, the average click rate fell to 10% in 2017. If your institution doesn’t require the additional phishing testing, NCATS has you covered; the assessment is very flexible, allowing clients to tailor it to fit their institution’s specific needs.

Cyber Hygiene

While the RVA gives an overall assessment of your institution’s cybersecurity, the Cyber Hygiene program is meant to provide “an adversarial view of what holes can be found on your perimeter.” The remote scan showcases any vulnerabilities or trends in your IP perimeter from week to week and provides thorough reports on those vulnerabilities. It can even summarize the progress that your institution is making towards fixing any previously identified issues.

Application Process

As free services, both programs offered by the NCATS team follow a formal process for applications. When asked how long it would take to set up their programs, McAfee reassured us that once an agreement is signed and the proper technical information is provided, the Cyber Hygiene program can be up and running in as little as 48 hours. As for the Risk and Vulnerability Assessment, it could potentially be up to eight to twelve months from the time of signing before the logistics and resources are in place. The NCATS team has a finite set of assessments that they can do each fiscal year, so if you are interested in their services, the sooner you reach out to them the better.

Privacy Concerns

After researching the NCATS’ cybersecurity offerings online, we came across a lot of comments expressing potential clients’ concerns with the programs. For example, many commenters were worried about “big brother” finding backdoors into clients’ networks and not notifying them. When asked about some of these concerns, McAfee explained that although the NCATS team works with other government agencies, like the Department of Defense and National Security Agency, maintaining a trusting relationship with clients is of utmost importance. “Relationship building and establishing trust with the communities out there is a driver for what we do every day.”

The relationships that NCATS has with other agencies are beneficial for clients, McAfee said. “It’s about taking information that is sensitive and being able to create a product for the communities that don’t have classified access, and getting that information to our stakeholders to best utilize in their environment at any point in time.”

McAfee reassured us that the NCATS team considers client privacy paramount to their operation. “We’re guided by a very strong legal team and our general counsel, as well as our formal agreements with those groups.” When it comes to trust, it’s hard to deny that the NCATS team has a good track record. As of our interview, their Cyber Hygiene program had 415 stakeholders after two years of operation. “We get a lot of return customers,” McAfee said.

A Client’s Perspective

Along with our interview with members of the NCATS team, we also had the opportunity to interview one of their clients, David Marion from Bridgewater State University. When asked about the concerns we had about the NCATS programs, Marion responded by saying that he sees the NCATS team as coworkers, not big brother. “We’re all on the same team,” he said. “No one is pointing their fingers at anyone else.”

His experience working with the NCATS team was a win-win for everyone involved, he explained. The IT department at BSU wasn’t sure whether their network was one hundred percent secure, so they reached out to the NCATS team for help. “We were able to send an email to the Department of Homeland Security and they were able to provide us some additional steps to see whether we were vulnerable or not.”

Marion mentioned that even if you’re not worried about your institution’s cybersecurity, the NCATS Cyber Hygiene program is “a quick, easy way to take the temperature of your infrastructure each week. It’s about demonstrating to leadership that security can do things for free.” Once your institution’s leadership see what is possible with free services, they may be more inclined to invest more in paid cybersecurity programs.

Conclusion

Although there may be better overall cybersecurity analysis services out there, it would be very difficult to get the level of expertise and support provided by the NCATS team for a better price. With additional services, such as a phishing campaign assessment, in development as of the time of our interview, the NCATS suite of programs can give you the reassurance you need about the strength of your university’s cybersecurity and potentially save your institution tens of thousands of dollars. To learn more about the NCCIC and NCATS programs, visit their website.

I’ve written several articles and blog posts for Optimal Partners Consulting, ranging from monthly community updates, event recaps, how-to-guides, and news updates.